"Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation" by F. Leroy Forlines

Forlines, F. Leroy. Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation. Nashville: Randall House, 2011.

       Chapter One, titled “Human Nature, Total Depravity, and the Image of God,” is where Professor Forlines develops a theology of man. Man is created in the image and likeness of God, His Creator; being made in God’s likeness, man possess both a “rational likeness” (man is able to think and communicate) and a “moral likeness” (humans have the law of God written on their hearts). There is also a relational aspect to the imago Dei; the relational aspects requires relationship with God, with the created order, with others, and with individual humans themselves. The fall affected the image of God in man by marring it, though not destroying it. As such, man can still do good things and make right choices---though none of his good choices can restore his broken relationship with His Creator.

 What happened in the Fall? Forlines dives into Romans 5 to provide details on the imputation of Adam’s sin. He notes two views regarding the imputation of Adam’s sin: (1) Federal Headship View, which states that Adam, elected as the head of the human race, sinned and brought consequences on the race as a result; and (2) Natural Headship View, which states that all of humanity, present in the loins of Adam, sinned along with Adam. In the Federal Headship view, humanity is plunged into sin simply because of Adam’s sin; in the Natural Headship view, Adam chooses to sin, and so does all of his posterity. Forlines supports the Natural Headship view for two reasons: (1) because Scripture’s very words seem to support Natural Headship: “The ‘all sinned’ of Romans 5:12 must be twisted to mean ‘all are accounted as sinners’ for the federal headship view. ‘All sinned’ is in the active voice. ‘All are accounted as sinners’ would require the passive voice” (29). Secondly, he approves of the Natural Headship view because to embrace Federal Headship would indicate an endorsement of Calvinism: For those who were unconditionally elected to be in the Christ covenant, they would be deemed righteous; this would mean, however, that in the Adamic covenant, all of humanity was implicated in Adam’s sin, unconditionally, with Adam being the only guilty party. The Federal Headship view makes humanity an innocent victim (and an unfair party to blame), while Natural Headship makes man a willing participant in Adam’s sin. Forlines then looks at Romans 5 to show that holding to Natural Headship maintains a parallel between the first Adam and the second Adam (Christ). In the same way that humanity shares responsibility with the first Adam, so also humanity shares responsibility for “receiving the overflow of grace” with the second Adam (Jesus Christ). Lastly, Forlines discusses other so-called “Arminian” notions of original sin, discarding the idea that these notions are truly “Arminian” in any sense.

 In Chapter Two, titled “Theology of Election,” Professor Forlines contrasts the Calvinist and Arminian conceptions of election (Unconditional and Conditional Election, respectively). Unconditional Election posits that God chooses individuals apart from faith or anything they could do. Neither faith nor work are required for salvation. With the Arminian view of Conditional Election, God chooses individuals based on faith, not on works. Forlines starts with Calvinism and tackles a main distinction within the soteriological system itself: those who hold to “Limited Determinism” and those who hold to “Unlimited Determinism.” Those who hold to limited determinism (such as Richard Mueller) believe that God determines only in the area of salvation; those who hold to unlimited determinism (such as Gordon Clark) believe that God determines every little event and action that occurs in reality. The concepts of limited and unlimited determinism hinge around Calvinist views of free will, an issue that many Calvinists are very vague about. Alongside of the concept of free will comes the concept of divine foreknowledge: what God foreknows regarding the actions of free individuals. It is at this point that Forlines dives into the positions of Calvinists (causal foreknowledge), Classic Arminians (exhaustive noncausal foreknowledge), and Open Theists such as Clark Pinnock (limited foreknowledge). Forlines then shows that Classic Arminians, beginning with Arminius himself, not to mention other contemporary writers such as Robert Picirilli, hold very tightly to divine exhaustive foreknowledge, distancing Classic (Reformed) Arminians from the likes of Clark Pinnock and the Open Theist movement. 

 Forlines then critiques the Calvinist views of determinism and goes into a discussion of the relationship of God and time. He discusses two views: the “Eternal Now” view, propagated by contemporary theologians such as Dr. Norman Geisler, as well as the Middle Knowledge Approach, its greatest modern-day advocate being Dr. William Lane Craig. Arminius disagreed with the notion of “Eternal Now” because of other events that God foreknows that do not materialize (what philosophers call “counterfactuals”).The Middle Knowledge approach is unacceptable as well, Forlines notes, because it does not answer how God foreknows events; it merely assumes that God foreknows all possibilities. Forlines spends the last four pages of the chapter discussing conditional and unconditional decrees and their logical ordering in Classical Arminianism.

 The two main ideas in chapter two that Professor Forlines attempts to tackle are 1) the Classical Arminian view of election, and 2) to provide fitting responses to what Forlines calls “the three basic assumptions of Calvinism”: (1) the sovereignty of God necessitates unconditional election; (2) total depravity eliminates a human response of faith in salvation; and (3) the free gift of salvation destroys conditional election.  If God is sovereign, then He can choose to save however He wants. Unconditional election, as posited by Calvinism, does not have the monopoly on how God chooses to save. Total

depravity does not necessarily eliminate a human response of faith, since God can enable individuals by grace to give a response of “yes” or “no” to the gospel in salvation. Salvation is a free gift; but salvation as “free” does not eliminate the condition of faith. The “free” gift simply means that we cannot merit or earn our salvation. “Free” here refers to works, not faith, since the apostle Paul argues that Abraham was justified by faith in God, not the work of circumcision (Romans 4).

 Chapter Three, titled “Proof Texts for Unconditional Election: Romans 9,” is one of the greatest chapters Forlines contributes to the Calvinist-Arminian debate. Forlines takes Romans 9 verse-by-verse, providing detailed exposition of the thirty-three verses in the chapter. This chapter, though, helps Forlines stand shoulder-to-shoulder with theologians such as John Piper because of its emphasis on the Jewish context of Romans 9, an area that few theologians, if any, seem to explore in commentaries on the subject of unconditional/conditional election. First, Forlines looks at the Jewish understanding of salvation. The Jews of Paul’s day (in Romans 9) believed that all Jews, all ethnic Jews of the nation of Israel, possessed automatic eternal security in salvation. Because of the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 17:8, that He would be the God of Abraham and his descendants, it was the common Jewish understanding that God was the God of every single ethnic Jew. Because the Jews viewed salvation as promised to every ethnic Jew, they held very strongly to the notion of corporate election/salvation. 

The nation of Israel would be saved, they believed, and the nation consisted of every Jew. Contra Western thought, the Jews placed more emphasis on God’s love for the nation of Israel (as opposed to Christians who emphasize the personal, relational aspect of salvation and life in Christ).

Forlines possesses the credentials to write on matters of Jewish background, since he wrote a ThM thesis on “Jesus and the Pharisees” at the Chicago Graduate School in 1970. His time in the program helped him realize that while the Pharisees were ethical legalists (following every jot and tittle of the law), they were not “soteriological legalists” (that is, to believe that salvation is dependent upon one’s ethics, one’s deeds).  This may seem confusing to some, since Paul explains to the Jews that they are seeking salvation the wrong way: by deeds instead of by faith (Rom. 9:30-33); but this tension of Jewish theology can easily be resolved when one comes to understand that the Jews also held to a view of apostasy: if a Jewish male was not circumcised, he would be “cut off” from God’s people (see Gen. 17:14, NKJV). One possessed eternal security as a Jew unless the individual did not do what God commanded in the covenant (such as circumcision). Only then, would a person be disowned from the people of God.

 Paul does not critique the Jewish doctrine of apostasy, since he tells the Gentiles that, if they do not continue in God’s kindness they will be “cut off” as well (Rom. 11: 22); rather, what Paul critiques is the nature of the Jewish doctrine of apostasy: that is, apostasy only occurs because one fails to fulfill the works of the law.  Paul argues that salvation is conditioned on faith, while apostasy is conditioned on unbelief. He also provides such instruction to the Gentiles in Romans 11, telling them that “you stand by your faith” (Rom. 11:20).

 In addition to providing proper Jewish background and refuting often-held notions of Jewish thought, Forlines also tackles the claims of John Piper, who believes Romans 9 argues for unconditional election (Calvinist notion).  Piper asserts that, since God elected Jacob over Esau “before they were born, or had done anything good or bad” (Rom. 9:11), God’s election of one over the other proves that election is up to God’s own selection of individuals. But Piper’s case is still not made. God’s eternal election conditioned on faith does not contradict God’s selection of Jacob over Esau. The contrast in Romans 9 is

 “works of the law/faith in Christ,” not “God’s selection of individuals/works salvation and faith” (although the Gentiles are chosen for salvation because they believe, vv. 30-33).  Faith, then, cannot be a work, for the Scriptures clearly distinguish the two (see Abraham in Romans 4). It seems then, that Piper’s Calvinism blinds him to the context of Romans 9 and drives him to make a philosophical assertion cannoted be demonstrated from within Scripture itself.

 Once Forlines has 1) provided the Jewish understanding of Israel’s salvation and apostasy as well as Paul’s refutation of eternal security for every Jew and apostasy on the basis of works, and 2) provided the Calvinist statement on Romans 9 and demonstrated that Piper’s philosophical presupposition does not bear the weight of Scripture and does not rule out the possibility of conditional election, he decides to tackle another aspect of election: the “corporate” vs. “individual” aspect. Paul does hold to a corporate view of election, which is why in Romans 11 he notes that “and so all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26); rather, what Paul does in Romans 9-11 is correct the Jewish idea that election is only corporate: that is, the notion that, “as long as each Jew does not apostatize, he is saved.” Paul wants the Jews to understand that there is an individual aspect to election, which is why he quotes the words of the Lord from Exodus 33:19, where the Lord says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” The fact that the very word “whom” in the Greek (hon an) is singular, “places the emphasis on the choice of the individual rather than on corporate election, as the case would be if God had chosen to save all of the Covenant Seed of Abraham” (127). Further word usage in Romans 9 confirms that God elects individually, as God has the rights to make from the same lump of clay “one” vessel for honor and another for dishonor (Rom.9:21).

 Chapter Four, titled “Proof Texts for Unconditional Election: Other Texts,” is a continuation of what Forlines did with Romans 9 in the previous chapter: that is, to demonstrate that Calvinist proof texts for unconditional election are not irrefutable. One of the alternative passages Calvinists use to support unconditional election is Romans 8:30. Many argue that this passage supports unconditional election; but it cannot, because, as John Wesley states (quoted by Forlines), Romans 11:22 itself argues for a “cutting off” of those who abandon their faith. The Gentiles “stand by their faith” and if they do not continue in it, they too, will be “cut off.” The Israelites, however, can be grafted back into the vine of God’s people---if they do not persist in their unbelief. Such statements, added to the context of Romans 8:30 (Romans 8), do not support unconditional election.

 The next passage Forlines tackles is the Gospel of John, another text used by scholars such as D.A. Carson (see Carson’s Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension) to argue for unconditional election. To refute this “Calvinist trump card,” Forlines first reminds his reader of the Jewish context: “While dealing with Romans 9, I pointed out that the prevailing view among Jews was that in connection with the call and covenant that God made with Abraham, He unconditionally saved all Jews. In support of that position, I gave quotations from John Piper, Charles Hodge, and Douglas J.Moo. Support was also given from The Jewish Encyclopedia. In Jesus’ ministry, He would have encountered the same viewpoint” (151). The goal of Forlines’ chapter on Romans 9 was to provide a proper Jewish context by which he could plunge the reader into this chapter. It is a logical assumption that, if Jews of Paul’s day held to this, the Jews of Jesus’ day would have held to the same basic assumptions.

  Forlines approaches the text of John 1:12-13 and election. Calvinists point to these two verses and use the phrase “which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” to say that salvation comes from God---thus, arguing that salvation is determined by God. Once again, though, Reformed Arminians believe that salvation is determined by God. That, however, does not place Calvinism in a better position than Reformed Arminianism. The question again is, “How has God determined salvation to be given?” John 1:12 says that God grants individuals to become children of God “to many who received him” and “to them that believe on His name.” This is a clear indication that God saves by faith, not by arbitrary choice.  Forlines continues to emphasize the Jewish understanding of election to salvation as corporate, something that Jesus Himself overturns in His encounter with Nicodemus (John 3:3,5). Forlines also tackles Acts 13:48, a verse that he believes has more to do with Gentiles as Jewish converts rather than God selecting some individuals for salvation. Since there were Gentiles around who had converted to Judaism pre-Christ, these Gentiles would have believed in Yahweh; living in the post-Christ era and hearing the preaching of the Word, these converts would then place their faith in the Lord Jesus. Even if one posits that Acts 13:48 refers to a divine predestination in eternity, Calvinism still cannot be correctly assumed---for Christ could predestine individuals to be saved in eternity if He was pleased to predestinate on the condition of faith. Once again, eternal decrees can be either unconditional or conditional. Neither is ruled out by eternity past.

Last but not least, Chapter Four contains a discussion on key words in the New Testament used to argue in favor of Calvinism: eklegomai, didomi, and helkuo. Of these three words, the Greek word helkuo grabs the greatest amount of Calvinist attention. The word itself can either mean “draw” or “drag”; Calvinists have always translated it as “drag” (John 6:44). While Calvinists appeal to other passages that contain the word (Acts 16:19; John 12:32; John 18:10; John 21:6, 11; Acts 21:30; James 2:6), this commits a word fallacy. One cannot look at a word meaning in other places and assume that the same word

in the current context means that same as the word meant in other places. Context aids in the determination of word meaning. While this word could mean “a strong drawing,” the word itself does not inherently lead to Calvinist conclusions. If, as Forlines has demonstrated, God works with individuals in an “influence and response” model rather than a “cause and effect” model (pp. 12-13), then this strong drawing could still involve a human response of “yes” or “no” to the gospel. As Forlines notes, “If a person is going to interpret helkuo in John 6:44 and 12:32 to be an irresistible drawing, he must first find a passage elsewhere that irrefutably teaches that there is such an irresistible drawing” (160).  Nowhere in Scripture can one find the word “irresistible”; however, in Acts 7:51, one does find the word “resist.” The Jewish audience at Stephen’s sermon “resisted the grace of God” as did their Jewish ancestors before them (Acts 7:51). Thus, the Scriptures themselves speak of “resistible grace,” not irresistible---leaving Calvinists out in the cold. To assume irresistible grace in John 6:44 is simply a circular argument (one assumes irresistible grace because one also assumes that God works in a “cause and effect” manner).

Chapter Five, titled “Scriptural Support for Conditional Election,” provides just that---scriptural evidence for the philosophical claim. First, Forlines performs word studies on key New Testament concepts such as predestination (Grk. proorizo), foreknow (Grk. proginosko),  foreknowledge (Grk. prognosis),  and election (Grk. eklegomai, ekloge). Romans 8:29-30 shows us that “predestination” is connected to sanctification; those God foreknew are predestined “to be conformed to the image of Christ” (171). This does no damage to the Reformed Arminian notion of conditional election. Ephesians 1:5 states that those who are “predestined to sonship” are “us,” the believers in Ephesians; and this is done “by Christ Jesus” (1:5).  Predestination here refers to believers, those who have come to believe that Jesus is Lord. Ephesians 1:5 poses no problem for conditional election (Reformed Arminianism), since believers are adopted by Christ as sons (since He desires to grant sonship to “those that believe on His name,” see John 1:12). Ephesians 1:11 poses no threat to conditional election, since it is “we who have obtained an inheritance,” those who are believers and have been adopted by God as sons into His family, that are “being predestined.” In none of the language of Ephesians do we find it ever said that believers are “predestined to believe”; rather, we find that believers are “predestined to sonship” and “predestined to obtain an inheritance” (the inheritance being eternal life).

Forlines then turns his attention to a word study of “foreknow” (Grk.proginosko). Forlines tackles head on the verse of Acts 2:23, a verse Calvinists use to support their idea that “foreknowledge” “predestination,” and “election" are the same. While Reformed Arminianism disagrees with Calvinism, it has no problem affirming “the predetermined purpose of God”: “The cross of Christ was a predestinated event. At the same time, numerous human beings were involved in one way or another in the effecting of the event”(176).  Although God predetermined Jesus’ death, He did not do it apart from His foreknowledge of free human actions. This is why Peter could emphasize human responsibility (“you have taken by lawless hands, crucified, and put to death”) in the same verse in which he also emphasizes divine sovereignty (divine predetermination of Jesus’ crucifixion).  

 The last word study in the chapter concerns the word “election” (Grk. eklegomai, ekloge).  One of the most often-used Calvinist prooftexts is Ephesians 1:4, where it says “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...” Calvinists as far back as Theodore Beza (see G. Michael Thomas’ The Extent of the Atonement) have translated Ephesians 1:4 as “He chose us to be in Christ,” and consequently, argue that in the eternal decrees of God, God decreed the salvation of certain individuals before He decreed to send Jesus to atone for humanity’s sin. But this poses a problem to the Calvinist system: how can God have decreed anyone to be saved before the decree to send Jesus, if we are elected “in Christ”? If Christ is “the chosen of God” (Luke 23:35), how can someone be chosen before Christ is chosen to save humanity (Matthew 12:18)? Though one can easily see that the decrees are a philosophical matter, to accurately represent God they must be based upon theology, the Scriptures. Ephesians 1:4 does not work for Calvinism, but against it. F. Leroy Forlines ends the chapter by addressing “The Extent of the Atonement” (those for whom Christ died), some objections to the view, and the scriptural affirmation that God desires to save all persons.

In chapter six, titled “The Nature of Atonement and Justification,” Forlines presents two theories on the atonement: (1) penal substitution and (2) governmental. In the penal substitutionary theory, there is a necessity to divine punishment: “It is the holy nature of the One who is Sovereign, Lawgiver, and Judge that makes atonement necessary to resolve the conflict between man and God, since God has placed man under condemnation” (201-202). God is not only mercy, but justice, and justice demands punishment for sin. God can punish for sin because He expects absolute righteousness, something that man did not and cannot render to his Lord (Romans 2:6-13). To be righteousness before God, we must have His righteousness. “There are two things that the justice of God will not permit a departure from: (1) Sin can under no circumstances go unpunished. (2) Under no circumstances will a person stand justified in God’s presence without absolute righteousness” (205). Atonement consists of two aspects: active obedience and passive obedience (205). Active obedience is what Christ performed on man’s behalf when He came to earth, lived a righteous life, and fulfilled the law.  Passive obedience refers to Christ’s death, where Jesus submitted to the will of God and offered Himself up, the godly for the ungodly.

Forlines then approaches justification in the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement. The believer’s justification entails two aspects: “There is the negative aspect, which deals with the remission of the penalty for sin. There is the positive aspect, which deals with restoration to favor with God” (211). To be justified by faith in Christ presupposes union with Christ; when one receives Christ as his or her Lord and Savior, he or she now identifies with Christ’s death and resurrection and He identifies with his or her sin: “Immediately upon union with Christ, a person can say, ‘I died with Christ.’ The history of the cross became his history, not in the experiential sense but by identification, so that he received full credit for that death. At the same time, the history of our sins became Jesus’ history, not in the sense that His character was affected, but so they would come into contact with the penalty He had already paid for them” (216).

The Governmental Theory of the Atonement states that, while sin merits punishment, it does not necessitate it: “While thus asserting the intrinsic evil of sin, Grotius denies an absolute necessity arising therefrom for its punishment.The punishment of sin is just, but not in itself an obligation” (Forlines quotes John Miley, 221).  Punishment in the Governmental Theory really exists to maintain the public good, and serves as a moral force to discredit wrongdoing.In the same way that courts exist today to punish lawbreakers (for the purpose of maintaining public welfare), likewise, governmental theorists argue that Jesus’ death was the penalty for sin to enforce obedience from humanity. In addition, the governmental view transfers no guilt to Christ nor righteousness to the believer: “Those who hold the governmental view agree that absolute righteousness is what God required of the sinner, and eternal death is the penalty for disobedience. However, in view of faith in Christ, God sets the penalty aside” (225). God simply pardons the sinner without any repercussions from the sin committed. Forlines ends the chapter with governmental objections to the Penal Substitutionary (or Penal Satisfaction) View: (1) Penal Satisfaction Through a Substitute Not Possible, (2) Universal Salvation or

Limited Atonement a Necessary Result, (3) Double Payment With Regard to Sinners Who Go To Hell, (4) Antinomianism the Logical Result, and (5) Necessarily Lead to the Conclusion ‘Once Saved, Always Saved’. Of the five objections posed by governmental theorists, the Double Payment objection has been viewed as one of the most formidable. Yet and still, there is no second payment for sin. Christ provisionally supplies the redemption for all persons, but if someone does not receive it, then he or she pays for his or her own sin. There is no “second” payment, because Christ’s atonement was never

appropriated to the individual. The same could be said of someone who, though given a chance to do one-million hours of community service or do life in prison, decides to spend life in prison without the possibility of parole. The person gives his life in jail---but he could have paid the penalty for his crime with community service. The fact that he chooses life in jail means that he did not do the hours of community service; thus, he substitutes one payment for another (there is no double reception here).

Last but not least, Forlines distinguishes between the “racial guilt” and “personal guilt” of individuals. This distinction is necessary in light of the fact that Scripture supports the concept of infant salvation (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:10). “Racial guilt” refers to the condemnation of the entire human race, brought into being because of humanity’s willing sin in Adam (Rom. 5).“Personal guilt” refers to the sinful actions of individuals. According to Forlines, infants only have “racial guilt,” not “personal guilt”: “Those who die in infancy will not escape hell because the guilt of Adam was not imputed to them, but because the atoning work of Christ is applied to them” (239).

 In chapter seven, titled “The Condition of Salvation,” Forlines looks at an exegetical issue that believers are confronted with in the Scriptures: while faith is the only condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16, 18, 36; Acts 16:31; Rom. 3:22, 28; 4:1-25; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:1-18; Eph. 2:8-9; and 1 Jn. 5:13), there are also references to repentance as a “condition” of salvation (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 17:30; 26:20; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:6; and 2 Pet. 3:9).This exegetical issue can be solved by viewing faith and repentance not as two conditions for salvation, but as two sides of the same coin: two aspects of the same experience (252). 

Forlines takes this chapter to show similarities between Classical Calvinism (five-pt.) and Classical Arminianism (five-pt.). For one, both systems view faith as a gift. Using John 6:44, Forlines argues that “faith is called a gift because it cannot be exercised without the work of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, it is a response of the person in such a way that it is a response of his or her personality…If a human being is to be treated as a person, in some real sense the action must be the person’s own, regardless of how much divine aid may be given” (257-258). Divine aid cannot override the human personality, since God made man in His image after His likeness (Gen. 1:26-28). For God to override man’s personality would mean that God would override His own work.

In a section of the chapter that many would hold to be genius, Forlines points out another inconsistency in Calvinism: Calvinists posit that regeneration precedes faith; but if, as Calvinist theologian Louis Berkhof says, “regeneration is ‘the beginning of sanctification,’” (263) then Calvinism argues that sanctification comes before faith, which is a logical (and theological) absurdity! The only explanation Calvinists have offered is that justification can exist from eternity in the mind of God; however, nothing is done in time until God actually does it. Although the Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world, He was not made known on earth until the time was ripe (1 Peter

1:20). If Jesus was foreordained to die in eternity but still had to die in time, then those who will be saved must receive Jesus in time. They cannot be deemed “saved” until they confess and believe on His name (Rom. 10:9).

 In a fitting conclusion to chapter seven, Forlines tackles a major misconception Calvinists have regarding Arminian theology; many accuse Arminians of holding to “works salvation” because they believe that one can believe prior to regeneration. However, such a misunderstanding of Arminianism is a direct result of the governmental view of the atonement, to which some Arminians hold. Because there is no absolute righteousness translated from Christ to the person, and no human guilt transferred to Christ, the individual’s faith is deemed on equal par with the absolute righteousness of Christ. “Calvinistic works that have criticized Arminianism have been based on this approach to Arminianism rather than the kind of Arminianism that I have set forth in this book” (267).  In the closing lines, Forlines distinguishes between the ground of salvation (which is Christ) and the condition of salvation (which is faith) [271].

Chapter Eight, called “Sanctification,” deals with the conformity of the believer to the image of Christ. Forlines properly distinguishes between justification and sanctification, noting that “justification settles the problem of guilt,” while “sanctification deals with the problem created by depravity” (273). One of the major errors Forlines notes about some who appeal to Calvinism is the view that one can be justified without needing sanctification: “The Bible knows of no separation between the two” (274). Those who hold to a watered-down version of Calvinism posit that people can be “eternally secure who show no evidence of sanctification” (276). He then examines how justification contributes to salvation, showing that justification is foundational for sanctification. One cannot be sanctified in Christ without also being justified in Christ. Sanctification consists of both a positional and an experiential aspect: “We are positionally set apart by God at conversion. We are experientially sanctified only as we practice holiness” (281). The remainder of the chapter itself covers the goal of sanctification (restoration of the image of God in man), and this concerns the areas of the conscious and subconscious mind, total

personality, as well as proper self-worth, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and transformation of our relationships with (1) God, (2) others, (3) self, and (4) creation, what Forlines labels “the four basic relationships” (291). Forlines also provides a discussion/contrast between the concept of regeneration in Calvinism and the concept of regeneration in Arminianism. The nature of regeneration, necessity of regeneration, means and agency, as well as the results of regeneration are discussed. Lastly, he discusses the goal of sanctification (perfection) and performs a word study on “perfection” throughout the Scriptures (Grk. teleios, artios, katartizmos).

Chapter nine, titled “The Perseverance of the Saints,” is where Professor Forlines sets out his doctrine of apostasy. He provides the discussion question of the chapter: “Is it possible for a person who has once experience the saving grace of God to once again be lost? I am going to take the position that it is possible for a person who has been saved to commit apostasy and become once again lost and under the wrath of God” (303). To this end, he explores the two dominant views of “Once Saved, Always Saved” (OSAS), both Classic

Calvinist and popular views. The Classic Calvinist view of OSAS in Perseverance (P) logically follows from the other four points in his system: (1) Total Depravity (T), (2) Unconditional Election (U), (3) Limited Atonement (L), and (4) Irresistible Grace (I). For the Classic Calvinist, unconditional perseverance (or eternal security) is guaranteed for believers because of unconditional election and the sovereignty of God. Believers will pursue holiness because God causes them to pursue it (remember? “cause-and-effect”

relationship).  In the popular view, OSAS is slightly different from the Classic Calvinist view: while in the Classic view, one pursues holiness because of cause and effect, in the popular view, one need not pursue holiness at all: “according to this view, once a person is saved he could never do anything that would cause him to be lost again” (306).

Forlines then examines the biblical evidence that OSAS proponents use in favor of their view: (1) John 10:28-29, (2) Romans 8:35-39, (3) Romans 11:29, (4) Philippians 1:6. In each case, he shows that Calvinist interpretations of these passages often overlook the context in which these passages are located. Dismantling the views of OSAS proponents, Forlines then presents his case for conditional security by looking at irrefutably clear evidence for apostasy: (1) Hebrews 6:4-6, (2) Hebrews 10:26-29, (3) 2 Peter 2:20-22, (4) Colossians 1:21-23, and (5) John 15:2, 6. While passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6 are heavily disputed, 2 Peter 2:20-22 is extremely clear in its stance: there will be those who “have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” but become entangled again in their sin and overcome. In order for one to become “again entangled” in sin (NKJV) and overcome, one had to have come out of his or her sin in the first place. The passage then, is irrefutably referencing those who became Christians but the abandon their faith. Such passages cannot be explained away.

Chapter Ten, titled “Apostasy and Assurance: Doctrinal and Practical Considerations,” is a great conclusion to Dr. Forlines’s systematic theology. In this chapter, Forlines considers the compatibility of the doctrine of apostasy with other cherished doctrines of the Christian faith: (1) divine sovereignty, (2) atonement and justification, (3) imputation of Christ’s death and righteousness, (4) union with Christ, and (5) salvation by grace through faith. Apostasy fits with the doctrine of divine sovereignty because it is possible for God to work with humanity in a different manner than with the rest of creation. Does God

work with us in a “cause-and-effect” relationship or an “influence and response” relationship? Calvinists assume that “cause-and-effect” is the only way God can relate to human beings, but is this the case? Only the Scriptures themselves will reveal whether or not this assumption is true (338).  Next, apostasy fits with the doctrine of atonement and justification because as long as an individual believes, he or she is justified by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. However, “on the condition of unbelief the identification

can be broken and the person would no longer have the death and righteousness of Christ” (341). Apostasy is consistent with union with Christ because union with Christ is achieved through faith. As long as the condition of faith stands, a person is in union with Christ. The issue with apostasy revolves around whether or not such union can be broken (to which Forlines answers “yes”).  Is apostasy consistent with the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith? Yes. Forlines writes that “Our justification is a gift from God. In no way did we participate in the ground of our justification. It is the death and righteousness of Christ that forms the grounds of our justification---not our obedience” (345).We are justified by faith---as long as our faith in Christ stands. Should one remove himself or herself from Christ, he or she would live by a works-salvation whose only wages is death (Rom. 6:23a). Without faith in the work of Christ on the cross, there is no hope of salvation.

In addition to this, Forlines provides a section on the assurance of salvation which I think is necessary and important in the espousal of such a controversial doctrine. Can one hold to apostasy and still be assured of his or her salvation? Yes. In the same way that signs are used to prevent someone from running into a flooded bridge, so are the warnings of Scripture used to prevent believers from “shipwrecking” their faith. Are the signs indicative of real possible consequences? Yes; however, such signs are not intended to frighten the believer into constant worry over his or her salvation. Rather, the signs are

given so that believers can avoid shipwreck. Believers can maintain confidence in their walk with God because God gives the warnings and believers heed them. Forlines then concludes the section in which he considers definitions of “apostasy” and what is meant in the contemporary church through use of the word “backslider.”